> The Revolution opened with a mere 1.68 million viewers for
> the week of January 16 according to Nielsen, which is down by 37 percent
> from year-ago occupant One Life to Live (2.64 million for the week of
> 1/24/11). Erosion was even worse among target female demos with The
> Revolution off from One Live to Live by 43 percent in women 25-54 (1.4
> rating/8 share to 0.8/ 4), 40 percent in women 18-49 (1.0/ 6 to 0.6/ 3)
> and 40 percent among women 18-34 (0.5/ 3 to 0.3/ 2).
Well, sadly, when ABC canceled the soaps, Brian Frons told Susan Lucci
that the new "lifestyle shows" will be 40 percent cheaper to produce
than the soaps. So, using that logic, if The Revolution's ratings are
roughly 40 percent less than OLTL's, then ABC, while not exactly
winning, at least isn't losing.
But, are the local affiliates the real losers in this one? Whenever
I'd watch AMC I'd notice there were a lot of local ads, at least
compared to watching, say, prime-time shows. I assume this was the
case with other markets (ABC probably had spots designated where
affiliates could drop in their local ads). Local ads are obviously
very important to stations; it's money just for them. If there are
suddenly fewer eyeballs watching those local ads in the spots AMC and
OLTL used to air, how long before the advertisers start offering the
channels less money for them, and then the affiliates begin losing
revenue?
What killed the primetime Jay Leno Show experiment a couple of years
ago wasn't the low ratings the show itself got; NBC could live with
those because a talk show is so much cheaper to produce than a drama
(sound familiar?). No, the low ratings for Leno resulted in poor lead-
ins for the local news, and the affiliates got quite angry, some
threatened to bail, and NBC scrapped the experiment. For broadcast
networks, keeping affiliates happy is very important; simply put,
without them, the networks' shows don't go out.
So I wonder how the affiliates feel about the loss in ratings.
Mike